1 2026:CGHC:13624-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1264 of 2026 M/s Niku Kedia A Proprietorship Firm Through- Its Proprietor Niku Kedia S/o Pawan Kedia Age About 38 Years Having Office At Rajan Attachi House Kashyap Complex Telipara Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administrative Department Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Urban Administrative Department Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation Risali, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation, Risali, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Kiran Construction Company Near Civic Center Bhilai Chhattisgarh … Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.27 20:11:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 23/03/2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 passed by Respondent No.3 – Municipal Corporation, Risali, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted and debarred from participating in future tender processes. The petitioner has further assailed its disqualification from the tender process initiated vide Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6994589 dated 15.12.2025 and the consequential action of declaring Respondent No.5 as the L-1 bidder. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned blacklisting order has been passed in a wholly arbitrary manner, without issuance of a proper show cause notice, without conducting any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs:- “In view of the facts and grounds mentioned hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the 3 impugned blacklisting order dated 10.03.2026 passed by Respondent No.03 – Municipal Corporation Risali. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner from the tender process of Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6994589 dated 15.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reconsider the technical and financial bid of the petitioner in accordance with law in the tender process relating to procurement of 33 E-cards for goods. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the action of the respondents declaring Respondent No. 5 as L-1 bidder with a quoted amount of about Rs. 1,64,96,700/-, despite the petitioner having submitted a substantially lower bid of approximately Rs. 75,07,500/-, and to take a fresh decision in the tender process strictly in accordance with law and principles of fairness and transparency. (v) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the blacklisting of the petitioner and from debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender processes. 4 (vi) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vii) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. (viii) Call For record of tender process of Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6994589 dated 15.12.2025” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of supply of goods and services and is eligible to participate in Government tenders through the GeM portal. Respondent No.3 issued a bid bearing No. GEM/2025/B/6994589 dated 15.12.2025 for procurement of 33 E-cards for goods, in which the petitioner participated and submitted its bid along with the requisite authorization from the OEM, namely M/s Jessun Techno Pvt. Ltd. During the course of technical evaluation, the petitioner was initially disqualified on the ground that the OEM was allegedly blacklisted in Prayagraj, to which the petitioner submitted a clarification stating that its OEM was Jessun Techno Pvt. Ltd. and not the said blacklisted entity. Thereafter, the respondent authorities relied upon an alleged email dated 25.02.2026 purportedly received from M/s Jessun Techno Pvt. Ltd. stating that authorization had been issued only to three entities and not to the petitioner. On the basis of the said communication, the petitioner was disqualified and subsequently blacklisted vide order dated 10.03.2026. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no show cause notice proposing blacklisting was ever issued, no inquiry was 5 conducted and no opportunity of hearing was granted. It is further contended that the petitioner had quoted a substantially lower bid of approximately Rs. 75,07,500/- as compared to Respondent No.5, yet Respondent No.5 was arbitrarily declared as L-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of blacklisting is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law as it has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that blacklisting entails serious civil consequences and cannot be imposed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70, wherein it has been held that “blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government and fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” It is further submitted that the impugned order is a non- speaking order as no reasons have been assigned for arriving at the conclusion of blacklisting. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, wherein it has been held that an order of blacklisting must be preceded by a show cause notice and must satisfy the test of proportionality. It is also argued that the respondent authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction and the entire action is arbitrary, mala fide and suffers from non-application of mind. 6 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner failed to establish valid authorization from the OEM and therefore the action taken by the authorities is justified. It is contended that the decision has been taken on the basis of material available on record and in exercise of administrative discretion. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited and the Court ought not to interfere unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary or mala fide. Reliance is placed on Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, wherein it has been held that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner had submitted an invalid or unauthorised OEM document, which was duly verified from the OEM through official communication, and therefore the petitioner was rightly disqualified and blacklisted. It is further contended that the tender authority has the discretion to evaluate bids and take appropriate action in case of irregularities. It is submitted that the action of blacklisting was necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the issue relating to blacklisting of the petitioner deserves consideration. It is well settled that blacklisting has serious civil consequences and cannot be imposed without adherence to the principles of natural justice. In Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that an opportunity of hearing must be afforded 7 before blacklisting. Further, in Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 105, it has been held that a show cause notice must clearly indicate the proposed action of blacklisting so as to enable the noticee to effectively respond. In the present case, it is evident that no specific show cause notice proposing blacklisting was issued to the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing granted prior to passing the impugned order. The order impugned is also non- speaking and does not disclose any reasons for arriving at the conclusion of blacklisting. Thus, the same is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 8. So far as the challenge to the tender process and declaration of Respondent No.5 as L-1 bidder is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the scope of interference in tender matters is limited. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the decision is bona fide and in public interest, the Court will not interfere in exercise of judicial review. In the present case, disputed questions of fact are involved with regard to the authenticity of OEM authorization and evaluation of bids, which require technical assessment. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the tender process in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 10.03.2026 insofar as it relates to blacklisting and debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender processes is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained 8 from giving effect to the blacklisting and debarring of the petitioner. However, the challenge to the tender process and declaration of Respondent No.5 as L-1 bidder is not interfered with. Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after issuing a proper show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved